I was arguing the validity of the Enstrom/Kabat on Mercury Rising And like Tobacco control they silence dissenting opinions. I had a healthy debate going with someone named Charles II and like Smoke Free if you put up too good of an argument you are blocked from commenting so I am leaving my response here.
I would be happy to read Siegel’s comments about Enstrom. Regrettably, your link (to Siegel) was yet another shotgun blast that has nothing to say about Enstrom. I can’t be bothered clicking 50 links to guess which one you meant.
The link was not intended to be a shotgun blast, it was his latest post showing his views on the direction of Tobacco control. Here is the link to Siegel’s comments.
I was wrong about the two papers being published. They indeed were. I mentioned OSHA because they are the agency responsible for regulating worker safety. The agency’s that you mentioned have also failed to take any action on the issue. My argument is that it is still a legal product for human consumption, and until one of these agencies takes action it is an infringement on property rights to tell the owner of that property they can’t use the product on their property or allow others to.
You may think that my accusation of cherry picking is contemptible, perhaps but so are the accusations against Enstrom accusing him of scientific misconduct. BTW I am not the one making the accusation. Enstrom did in his rebuttal “Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience”
Jonathan M. Samet, M.D., and the 1992 EPA Report
One might wonder how omissions, distortions, and exaggerations like those pointed out above could occur in a document as important as a Surgeon General’s Report on ETS. To better understand this phenomena one must realize that Samet has dealt with the ETS issue in this manner for many years. In particular, he played a major role in the epidemiologic analysis for the December 1992 report on Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders: . . .
You keep mentioning your scientific credentials and yet have not used any of it to refute any of my statements. A claim of scientific superiority is not proof of anything.
You repeated several times Failure to find a correlation is not, in itself, proof of the absence of a relationship. Which is true, but equally true is the fact that weak statistical association does not prove that there is a relationship. The only people claiming that their is,is tobacco control. Weak statistical associations has never been considered conclusive proof by any scientist other then Tobacco Control. The award winning article in Science “Epidemiology faces its limits” bears this out.
If it’s a 1.5 relative risk, and it’s only one study and even a very good one, you scratch your chin and say maybe.” Some epidemiologists say that an association with an increased risk of tens of percent might be believed if it shows up consistently in many different studies.
That’s the rationale for meta-analysis – a technique for combining many ambiguous studies to see whether they tend in the same direction (Science, 3 August 1990, p. 476).
But when Science asked epidemiologists to identify weak associations that are now considered convincing because they show up repeatedly, opinions were divided – consistently.”
Your other assertion;
4. Since it is very well-established that tobacco smoke is a carcinogen (and a health hazard in many ways), a study purporting to show that in one format it is not carcinogenic should propose a plausible mechanism.
Again this ignores dose response. Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H. had this to say;
These statements violate the basic tenet of toxicology: “only the dose makes the poison.” What is most alarming here is that the top doctor in the land is communicating a message that anything that is harmful at high dose can be lethal at low dose — when that is simply not true.
Just in case they have not hyped the threat of ETS enough, the CDC in its report grimly warns us that ETS is “toxic.” In a shameful ploy to cash in on prevailing consumer chemophobia, the agency informs us that cigarette smoke contains ammonia, toluene, cadmium, arsenic, and formaldehyde, which they “helpfully” tell us are used, respectively, in household cleaners, paint thinners, batteries, pesticides, and embalming fluid — as if this exotic list alone were evidence that the chemicals are dangerous.
Edmund Contoski says pretty much the same thing.
The “no threshold” theory about cancer has never been shown to be true for ANY chemical, much less secondhand smoke. The theory that if something is carcinogenic at high doses it must also be proportionately so at small doses simply does not fit the real world.Dr. Elizabeth Miller, former president of the American Association for Research on Cancer, has stated: “Chemical carcinogenesis is a strongly dose-dependent phenomenon.” This is opposite to the claim by smoking ban advocates—including the surgeon general—that it is not dose dependent, that any dose is a health hazard (no threshold.)
The no-threshold theory, when applied to secondhand smoke, “incorporates unsound assumptions that are not valid,” says an article by Drs. Huber (pulmonary specialist), Brockie (cardiologist), and Mahajan (a hospital director of internal medicine and professor of medicine.)
Charles II claims scientific superiority yet he failed to find a serious error on the site. Enstrom’s stuff is tobacco-industry-funded garbage that the World Health Organization has debunked<
If you follow the link it was a response to the infamous WHO study an was a response to this news report.
On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported “The world’s leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect.”
It had absolutely nothing to do with the enstrom/kabat study.
So Charles II if you wish to continue the discussion feel free to join me here, I will not discard your posts.
I temporarily disabled this blog because I thought it might have been in error but I got the discarded page three more times so I am going to assume my posts have been blocked.
And the arrogant post by Charles II calling me a lier justifies it.